Dismissed

Seema Devi v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024CRLR/3610/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Revision dismissed the revisionist's challenge against the rejection of her application for FIR registration. The court found the rejection justified as allegations appeared motivated by personal scores rather than establishing a cognizable offence, finding no illegality in the lower order. Partial application u/s 154 Cr.P.C. was not a valid ground for dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed as it lacked merit; the impugned order was affirmed.

Seema Devi vs State of Up and 4 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120831

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3610 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Seema Devi Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar,Yogendra Kumar Bhartiya

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist-Seema Devi against the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by Special Judge Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Deoria in Criminal Misc. Application No. 95 of 2024, CNR No. UPDE010011182024 (Seema Devi Vs. Saurabh and others), whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C filed by the revisionist seeking direction for registration of First Information Report against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 has been rejected.

¶9

Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the revisionist moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 18.03.2024 before the Special Court, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Deoria seeking direction to lodge F.I.R. against opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 alleging inter alia that she belongs to Scheduled Castes Community. Her husband died eight years back. Opposite party No. 2 taking benefit of said situation, made a proposal for remarriage with him. On the said proposal, opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 who are family members of Saurabh/ opposite party No.2, have also given their consent and accordingly opposite party No. 2 solemnized marriage with her in a temple and started making physical relation. When she mounted

¶10

pressure for Court Marriage, he refused to abide the same. On 18.08.2023, she moved an application for registration of her marriage before Marriage Officer, Deoria and when notice was issued to opposite party No. 2, he refused to accept the same. On mounting further pressure by her, opposite party No.2 denied to accept her as his wife in collusion with his family members by stating that she is widow and belongs to a lower caste. He further stated that he can keep her as a concubine. In the application she apprehends of threat to her life. the learned court below had rejected the said application of the revisionist vide order dated 29.05.2024 observing that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. while filing the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., but for compliance thereof, no documents have been filed by the revisionist along with the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶11

Assailing the aforesaid impugned order, main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclose the commission of cognizable offence and considering the nature of allegations proper investigation by the police is required after registration of F.I.R., therefore the learned Magistrate ought to have allowed the application and direct the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station to register the F.I.R. and investigate the same.

¶12

On the other hand learned Additional Government Advocate for the state of U.P./ opposite party No.1, refuting the aforesaid argument submits that the impugned order is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons, the same does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, hence no interference is required by this Court.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to mention that there is no dispute that on receiving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., three courses are open to Magistrate. He may either take cognizance under 190 Cr.P.C. or

¶14

may forward the application to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation or he may dismiss the application having baseless or false allegation, therefore such discretionary power ought to have been exercised cautiously with due application of judicial mind only on reasons and not in a routine or mechanical manner. If Magistrate is prima facie of the view that allegations made in the application constituted commission of cognizable offence requiring thorough investigation, he may direct the police to register the case and investigate the same.

¶15

At this juncture, it would be apposite to mention that the word "may" occurring in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is of utmost significance. It gives the Magistrate a discretionary power to order or not for an investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed in the application. This discretionary power has been given to Magistrate to enable them to deal adequately with both types of the applications (i) the genuine application containing truthful allegations about the commission of cognizable offence, and (ii) the applications having baseless or false allegation, It is the duty of the Magistrate to make it a point that no applicant of later category may succeed in his wicked game. His application need to be dismissed with firmness and boldness. At the same time it is the poise duty of the Magistrate to ensure that no case of the former category may go uninvestigated. The Magistrates are thus saddled with a grate responsibility to keep such balance.

¶16

Having examined the matter in its entirety, I also find that it is not in dispute that revisionist is widow and she on her own sweet will, solemnized marriage with the opposite party No. 2 in a temple and started making physical relation with him without any protest. It appears that the revisionist is aggrieved on account of the conduct of opposite party No. 2 that he is not willing to get their marriage registered. Therefore, the revisionist wants to lodge F.I.R. against the opposite party No. 2 and his family members in order to mount pressure and to settle her personal score. Hence under the facts and circumstances of

¶17

the case, no interference is required in the impugned order dated 29.05.2024, which does not suffer from any illegality.

¶18

The Criminal Revision lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed .

¶19

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Kashifa

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Seema Devi v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Devi v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinku Bhuj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Omwati vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Surjeet Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepesh Kumar Kashyap vs State of Up and 2 Others

Imamuddin Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Parth Raj Singh vs State of U.P.